Eiropas e-tiesiskuma portāls - Case Law
Aizvērt

IR PIEEJAMA PORTĀLA BETA VERSIJA!

Apmeklējiet Eiropas e-tiesiskuma portāla BETA versiju un sniedziet atsauksmes par savu pieredzi!

 
 

Navigācijas ceļš


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 142289812
Dalībvalsts Latvija
Common Name link
Decision type Court decision, first degree
Decision date 07/10/2013
Tiesa Rīgas Administratīvā rajona tiesa
Temats
Prasītājs SIA “Jet Tour Latvia”
Atbildētājs Consumer Rights Protection Centre
Atslēgvārdi package, scope of the Directive, transport, travel

Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 1. Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 2. Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 3.

(1) A combination of a tourism programme and transport services provided by two unrelated companies can constitute a package within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Directive 90/314/EEC.
(2) A person who creates such a combination and offers it to consumers is an organizer within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 90/314/EEC.
The plaintiff was selling packages for tourism in China on the basis of an agency contract with a Chinese company. Hence, the plaintiff considered itself to be merely a retailer within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Directive 90/314/EEC and did not provide any security for the refund of money (an obligation due to an organizer).

However, the packages offered by the plaintiff included return flights from Latvia to China, which were provided by a different company unrelated to the plaintiff or the Chinese company. Given this, the defendant considered the plaintiff to be acting as an organizer and adopted a decision imposing a fine on the plaintiff for not providing security for the refund of money. The plaintiff disagreed since it considered the Chinese company to be the organizer and brought a claim before the court to repeal the defendant’s decision.
(1) Can a combination of a tourism programme and transport services provided by two unrelated companies constitute a package within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 90/314/EEC?
(2) Is a person who creates such a combination and offers it to consumers an organizer within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 90/314/EEC?
(1) The court examined the agency contract between the plaintiff and the Chinese company and found that, although the contract referred to a tourism programme in China, it did not include flights to and from China. The court concluded that the plaintiff had combined the tourism programme provided by the Chinese company and flights to China provided by the other company, creating a new tourism package as a result.

(2) The court concluded that by offering the new package to consumers the plaintiff had acted as an organizer and had an obligation to provide security for the refund of money.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The court reduced the amount of the fine imposed on the plaintiff, but did not repeal the defendant’s decision.